Buddhism and Entheogens

topic posted Tue, September 2, 2008 - 12:46 AM by  Toc
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
What role, if any, do you think entheogens such as psilocybin mushrooms or peyote, have had on the Buddhist community especially in regards to Zen and Meditation?

What's the general attitude towards those who use them as an aid to their spiritual practices?
posted by:
Toc
offline Toc
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

    Tue, September 2, 2008 - 10:12 AM
    None.

    Only if you look at recent statistics.
    Western Buddhists entering Tibetan Vajrayana
    as recently as the 1970's were experienced with
    drugs.

    Historically, no relationship.
    • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

      Tue, September 2, 2008 - 10:39 AM
      What about the historical relation of Cannabis to Buddhism?

      Even Hinduism, a precursor to Buddhism, still to this day makes use of Charas, or Hash smoke out of Chillums, by Sadhu Priests.
      • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

        Tue, September 2, 2008 - 1:50 PM
        Proto-Hinduism is antecedent to Buddhism,
        not a precursor. They are very different things.

        Shaivite Sadhus belonging to certain orders
        do smoke canibis, again no relation to Buddhism.
        I do not believe that orthodox Vedic priests of
        Vaishnava, Shaivite or Devi denominations
        authorize its use, I may be mistaken. Ask them.
        • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

          Tue, September 2, 2008 - 2:03 PM
          Semantics is a silly game, but whatever, Hinduism was around before and it is very plain to see that people adopt practices from those who existed before them, while losing other practices.

          As for Orthodoxy, well, that's nothing I've ever given much care for, that word often seems to represent the anti-mystical face of religions.

          Does it seem so offensive or impossible that earlier civilizations and spiritual practices could have utilized naturally occurring substances that brought about mystic states very similar if not the same as those they were trying to gain via alternative means?
          • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

            Tue, September 2, 2008 - 4:32 PM
            I'm sorry I'm not trying to cause an argument, what im really trying to say (and surprised I need to say it to a San Franciscian Buddhist) is to just keep an open mind about it.
          • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

            Tue, September 2, 2008 - 5:07 PM
            What would "priest" mean in this context other than
            Vedic priest (graduate of an orthodox vedic math),
            who is employed by a temple? There are dozens of
            Hindu temples, ask one of their priests and see
            what they say.

            You don't know me, or how open my mind is. But I
            will tell you that I know facts about Buddhism, and
            Hinduism-- where they are similar and where they
            are different.

            Lord Buddha tried many things, found them lacking
            and presented a genuine path to Buddhahood that
            doesn't involve artificially induced "mystic states."
            Rather, Buddhadharma is largely concerned with
            reality as it is. Buddhadharma uses mindfulness
            meditation and logic mainly, and some devotion.
            • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

              Tue, September 2, 2008 - 5:22 PM
              "artificially" induced.

              Reality as it is? What if reality isn't as it is and there is more you can't see?

              You say you "know"...but what did that one awesome dude say?

              "He who speaks, does not know, and he who knows, does not speak" ...

              Now, I'm not sure, but I have experienced this subject from several angles, and I think the issue people are ticked off over it is we who use or believe in Entheogens can seem to accomplish in a matter of minutes/hours what someone counting breaths takes years or lifetimes to do. "Religions" like to have the upper hand, to be in control and short cuts tick people off who are dedicated to the long road.
              • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                Tue, September 2, 2008 - 11:15 PM
                Ah yes, so speaking facts proves ignorance.
                Conversely the scholar, sage, or educated refrains from educating.
                Thus ignorace prevails. How is that compassionate?

                I think that "awesome dewd" must have the great Orwell !
                "Knowlege is ignorance, freedom is slavery..."

                Since you know the benefits of "shamanic practice"
                why not continue to be a shaman? Why look for the practice
                where it is not or insist that it should be? Not in the Theravada,
                nor the Mahayana such as Zen, the Pure Land sects, nor the
                Tibetan Orders. Nowhere is this practice scriptural. Clearly the
                Buddha knows what works where his goal is concerned.
                Since you know its good, clearly you don't need the Buddha.
                • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                  Wed, September 3, 2008 - 12:47 AM
                  I don't take refuge in the Buddha at all, but he was wise beyond all time.

                  You talking about the scholar, sage, and educated, you talk about things not being written about in the text, but what about esoteric and mystic traditions? You think it's the written word they hand down to each knew man? What about being syncretic and eclectic? Why is it bad that things evolve and CHANGE (or go full circle back to more unremember traditions)?

                  You are scholarly and well written, and I enjoy your posts, but their is just an air of such certainty and rigidity and unimaginative close-minded orthodox approach to it all...bummer.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                    Wed, September 3, 2008 - 9:51 AM
                    I invite you to talk to any qualified Lama and receive from
                    them them oral esoteric (ear whispered) tradition.
                    Believe me, they are written down. That's how they ensure
                    that they are not lost. Nobody who has every gotten results
                    from a lineage has wanted to add or make up things.

                    Now, openness to other traditions, that is quite common.
                    I'm one of the most curious people I know. I'm interested
                    in just about everything, but I never encourage mix and match.
                    It just ends in resultless confusion. I never met a dilletant
                    who accomplished anything. So find a path that works for you
                    and pursue it to the end, practice it to completion, master it.
                    • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                      Wed, September 3, 2008 - 11:24 AM
                      In my experience, regardless of how different they seem on the outside, the inside, the esoteric and mystic of pretty much every single "path" up the mountain is the same.

                      Now, I guess you wouldn't ever see a dilettante who accomplished anything, because then they would be a dilettante.

                      I've choosen my path, a spiritual one of living, learning and growing. Just because I am syncretic in my beliefs doesn't make them any less useful on my path. In fact, a lack of rigid dogma lets me keep my ears and eyes open for truth and BS (of which ALL RELIGIONS got some), no matter where it may stick it's head up.

                      BTW, I have spoken to "a" Rinpoche at a Sakya Temple in Seattle, WA, on a couple of occasions, and I've been told some very very very interesting things, and certainly nothing that was written down, or against what I've been saying already.

                      Amrita!

                      -Isaac
                      • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                        Wed, September 10, 2008 - 9:25 AM
                        I have a similar search as a you Isaac. I am working on a PhD in comparative religion and philosophy focusing on the phenomenology of South American psychedelic shamanic traditions and Himalayan Buddhist traditions.
                        Though entheogens are mentioned very infrequently in the Buddhist traditions, they are there, specifically datura and cannabis in various tantras.
                        There is actually another thread on this tribe about this very topic.

                        Though I respect Mark's knowledge in Buddhism, I do find this thread tainted with a sort of prejudice and certitude.
                        This tradition is 2500+ years old. Entheogenic plants have been scattered across the planet since life emerged.
                        It is far from conclusive to say that any "spiritual" tradition has not been influenced directly or indirectly from these substances at some important part of its history.

                        With regards to "genuine" experiences of reality "as it is", the bias of psychedelics as "artificial" mystical states is ignorant.
                        Some scholars even speculate that meditative techniques were developed to help navigate psychedelic experiences. As generations slipped by, the techniques were venerated over the experiences they were used to navigate. Though this is a stretch, there is a long long history in both shamanic and introspective traditions of non-duality which may be difficult to disentangle.

                        My .02
                        • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                          Sat, May 2, 2009 - 10:03 AM
                          if you want to see the dogma vs entheogen drama described in real life, read dmt the spirit molecule by rick strassman. he was asked to leave his buddhist group or stop his research.
                          my own experience of buddhism was greatly enhanced by the use of ayahuasca. I understood principles with a certainty that had been obscure words to me before. the buddha had no contact with ayahuasca, so it is impossible to say what his opinion of the lessons of that substance might have been. to generalize makes an easy rule to follow, but then this can lead to a blind dogma and when the unexpected teacher arrives, you won't let him in.
                          • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                            Sat, May 2, 2009 - 3:26 PM
                            what part of the precept " I shall refrain from intoxicants(while on this retreat/doing this practice)" does everybody not understand? nThe Buddha had contact with lots of interesting drugs in his life. He didn't specify which ones to avoid,so what does it matter if he was exposed to it or not? They didn't have crystal meth in his time, so would it be OK to combine my practice with that?
                            I smoke pot. I am a practicing meditator. I DO NOT MIX the two, I don't meditatre in order to becom a more advanced pothead and I don't smoke pot when I meditate.
                            I understood advanced algebra on acid. For an entire day. Then I went back to algebra class the next day thinking I had Got iT. Guess What?
                            If you're high on ANYTHING, you only *think* you got it.
                            • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                              Sat, May 2, 2009 - 4:02 PM
                              The troubling word in that precept is "intoxicants".
                              Certain substances may not be "toxic" by definition.
                              I think bringing up crystal meth is ourside the scope of this discussion since it is surely "toxic".
                              Some substances are very good at breaking habitual responses and opening awareness to subtle nuances of mind while being completely non-toxic to the body. I think the discussion of these two approaches to mental investigation are valid.
                              • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                Sat, May 2, 2009 - 4:08 PM
                                OK<,what is the Pali word for "mind or consciousness altering substances?" Because the Buddha was Not speaking Latin when he gave the precept, so if you are going to get all etymological on me, do it in the Buddha's own language.
                                • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                  Sat, May 2, 2009 - 4:09 PM
                                  Which is not to say that certain substances may be helpful to some people in looking inward, this conversation specifically about BUDDHIST practice and the Buddha specifically said-no getting high, in whatever language you choose to use to interpret his words.
                                  • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                    Sat, May 2, 2009 - 4:48 PM
                                    I don't know the Pali word which was translated as intoxicant, but I am pretty sure it wasn't referring to psychedelics.
                                    Also, my relationship to Buddhism is as a living tradition. Substances such as ayahuasca aren't native to the area and thus aren't being referred to in that precept. What do you say about lamas and alcohol? I am not saying its one way or another, I just think it isn't as black and white as some might believe. "Getting-high" as you say, isn't a technical term and I think being fundamentalist about that precept might be a little bit limiting.
                                    • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                      Sat, May 2, 2009 - 4:55 PM
                                      Suramerayamajja pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami :
                                      I undertake the training to abstain from substances which cause intoxication and heedlessness.
                                      • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                        Sat, May 2, 2009 - 5:15 PM
                                        did YOU translate that or did you just copy somebody else's translation? I would like a direct transliteration of the Pali, not a translators putting it in easily understood terms. Or just go for the heedlessness. Hallucinations make one heedless.
                                        • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                          Sat, May 2, 2009 - 5:35 PM
                                          I don't speak Pali, so that is not my translation. I was just providing the Pali if you feel like finding the "direct transliteration".
                                          You say, "Hallucinations make one heedless".
                                          I am not sure what your logic is here.
                                          Also, "hallucination" is a biased word assuming one perceives something "not there".
                                          Perhaps "hallucination" is not an appropriate word for the levels of awareness revealed through certain substances.
                                        • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                          Sat, May 2, 2009 - 5:42 PM
                                          "Sura-meraya-majja-pamadatthana veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami" = "I vow to refrain from becoming intoxicated" ......What' don't you understand?
                                          • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                            Sat, May 2, 2009 - 6:02 PM
                                            Assuming "intoxicated" or "intoxicant" are the best translations of the Pali (which I cannot verify), what do you understand the word to mean?
                                            I think the bias, which you naysayers are grabbing on, is the assumption that mind is distorted, dulled, made more ignorant, etc through the use of "entheogens". I suggest that this may not be true for all such substances. Perhaps some may heighten awareness and aid in the path. Consider the four reliances: instead of focusing on the words, consider the meaning.

                                            The conversation can open in many directions. What do you say about caffeine? Alcohol? the Internet? Sex? Are these "intoxicants"?
                                            • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

                                              Sat, May 2, 2009 - 6:09 PM
                                              'I untertake to refrain from sexual activity" (or inappropriate sexual activity, outside of the retreat environment, which opens a whole other can of worms) pretty much covers one, alcohol, last time I looked, makes one both intoxicated and heeless, any substance which alters ones perception is technically toxic, caffeine can certainly be abused but I will make an exception for that- although I find it ironic that retreat centers will offer highly caffienated teas but not coffee.
                                              However when I was a tobacco smoker, I went cold turkey every time I went on retreat. Really enhances the experience, I can testify to that.
  • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

    Sat, May 2, 2009 - 6:19 PM
    Specifically regarding historical Zen, zero to none based on climate and ecology alone. More generally, (imo) enlightening states of being bear few experiential similarities to entheogenic states. Some would argue that MDMA as an empathogen would take one deeper into an enlightening state. A comparison of brainwave examples would confirm that there is little correlation, I believe.

    This does not mean that entheogens cannot be valuable tools in a varaiety of works. It just means that there is probably no association between Zen, Chan, and potentially Buddhism in general on the one hand, and entheogens on the other.
    • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

      Sat, May 2, 2009 - 7:51 PM
      Darnit, Greg, I was gonna say that. I have no objection to people's using substances to attain altered states for spiritual reasons, No objection to using substances as holy sacraments, as long as nobody gets hurt
      I specifically am referring to Strictly ,Traditional _Buddhist_ Practice.
      • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

        Sat, May 2, 2009 - 11:48 PM
        xacly :) No surprise that we agree on this.
        • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

          Sun, May 3, 2009 - 8:07 AM
          This old thread has become an interesting conversation
          since Buddhists have joined it. So here's a couple questions
          I would raise.

          1) Since psychoactive drugs alter perceptions, why should
          we assume that the arising mental states are clear and lucid?
          (i.e. helpful states) Since according to Buddhist philosophy,
          we are obscured by karmic imprints of delusion.

          2) why should we assume that such substances are not harmful
          to this precious human body and its nervous system in particular
          (not to mention liver, stomach, lungs, etc.?

          Tibetans Lamas (and I presume) other qualified Buddhist teachers
          will agree to appropriate medicine in the case of a health disorder.
          They will agree that even a poison used in such cases can be helpful
          (such as chemotherapy). Maybe even, psychiatric drugs can help
          severely depressed or others, but they will not agree that the drug
          will solve the underlying causes which reside in consciousness.

          Where is there more harm than benefit? What approaches are a dead end?
          Buddha Shakyamuni didn't stay with his extremist-ascetic yogi teachers:
          he saw the dead end. He began to eat again.
  • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

    Mon, May 4, 2009 - 12:47 AM
    Many, many people have used self medicated in order to access states of awareness that fall outside their normal perceptual field. This, in itself can be a powerful and inspiring experience.

    "Medicines" can also be abused, either by being taken for granted and used recreationally and indiscriminately, or by being overused.

    While their effects may provide dramatic though transitory shifts in attention, they are by no means a replacement for spiritual practice.

    Imagine you are in a car driving down a long highway. There is a bunch of dirt and bugs spattered on your windshield. You have been driving for so long you don't notice the dirt, the bugs, or even the windshield--to you, the world *is* as it appears through your windshield.

    Then imagine that your windshield suddenly turns purple. This is such a surprise, that you are suddenly reminded that you have been looking through a windshield, that there's a thick layer of dirt and bugs collected on it and that you can turn on your windshield washers to clear away some of the dirt, so you do. Now you can see better through the windshield except that everything's purple, but that's cool because you never noticed how different things looked when they were purple.

    After a while the purple fades away. You are still aware that you are looking through the windshield and that it has already begun to accumulate a fresh layer of dirt (and bugs). At this point, you are in a precarious position. You know that by turning your windshield purple, you were able to notice things about the way you were looking through your windshield that you had forgotten. Observations which, even now, are fading.

    So do you:

    A) Continue to turn the windshield different colors. At least that way you stay aware of the windshield, the dirt the bugs, and... shit is that a chip?

    B) Keep driving. You know the windshield isn't really purple. That was just because something turned it purple. Duh.

    C) Jump out of the car. Fuck this!

    D) Begin a practice of regularly cleaning the windshield, of regularly reminding yourself that you are looking through a windshield, and looking for practical ways of continuously improving the display quality afforded by your windshield, staying in the car until such a time as it seems safe to leave it, presumably after having arrived at a suitable destination?
    • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

      Mon, May 4, 2009 - 11:17 AM
      Interesting example. In my opinion, I’ll answer both this question and the previous. I believe this altered state causes more harm than benefit. Consider that by manipulating your neuron receptors chemically thru drugs (call it what it is) can enhance or retard synopsis functions in the brain. This experience, in my opinion, shouldn’t be held to any real value. It’s a fake way to stir your mind. What if when things turn purple, your freakin on a bad trip or paranoid? What value, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually will come of this? To me, it’s more harm than benefit. To you and me, getting high is usually an enjoyable experience. Trying to justify spiritually trippin is to me…..a dead end.
      • Re: Buddhism and Entheogens

        Tue, May 5, 2009 - 9:13 AM
        "It’s a fake way to stir your mind."
        What do you mean by fake? Experience is experience, real enough. Some may argue that visualization is a "fake way to stir your mind".
        We learn through experience. Why put value judgement on certain experiences as being more or less real/fake?

        "What if when things turn purple, your freakin on a bad trip or paranoid? What value, intellectually, emotionally, spiritually will come of this?"
        Its true that there are pitfalls to certain methods and practices. There are also possible pitfalls to certain Buddhist practices. It all depends on the person and how much mindfulness, attachment, and integration is brought to the experience. Psychedelic work isn't for everyone, but to make blanket statements like "it's more harm than benefit" is making a pretty big assumption. Even "bad trips" or terrifying experiences relating to Buddhist practices can be of benefit depending on what one does with such an insight. I heard Namkai Norbu's son talk about how terrified he was when he first glimpsed emptiness. Does his fear imply that this "experience" has any less value?

        Certain biased words you have used imply to me a lack of understanding in regards to these "medicines". (Yes, I say medicines, you say drugs.) You say "getting high is usually an enjoyable experience". I tend not bring in likes/dislikes as they are merely judgement labels. Also, not all such "medicines/drugs" are created equal. Ayahuasca is quite different than, say, LSD. Ayahuasca is definitely not the "enjoyable experience" of "getting high". Its not something anyone does as recreation.

        I am not trying to convince anyone that "medicine" work is a full and complete path, I am just weary of people who seem to claim there is no benefit, its a dead end, etc.